Suddenly, somewhere people heard a distinct but faint “FUCK” echo through the valley, but they knew it was Angelina Jolie.
Understandable. As others said, they have a demographic decline.
Who doesn’t right now?
China is unique. The one-child policy has only recently been lifted, and the government is actively encouraging the population to have more children. The problem is that because of economic hardship and because this policy has changed the family culture in China, parents still do not want to have multiple children.
The US, for example, has a very stable population.
The demographic situation in China really doesn’t have an analog anywhere else in the world.
The US is only stable because of immigration. And since that’s been attacked nonstop the US will be in trouble soon too
You’ve been deceived by political rhetoric. The share of the US population who are first generation immigrants is the highest it’s been in over 100 years.
OK? That changes the fact that Republicans are dead set on stopping immigration?
You might notice whenever they have power Republicans take little to no substantive action on this issue, because it’s only campaign rhetoric
I knew someone who used to say this about the Republicans and abortion, that they used the issue for fundraising from evangelicals and they weren’t actually going to overturn Roe v Wade. I didn’t think she’s saying that anymore.
(Although immigration is very much a different topic, the oligarchs in charge mostly seem to realize that undocumented immigrants and H1B visa workers are much easier to exploit and abuse, so it’s in their best interest to not fuck with those programs too much. But DeSantis did and fucked up the citrus industry in Florida for a while…)
It’s a win for the children.
Plenty of American kids need homes.
Capitalism doesn’t work on giving everyone a decent standard of living. It works on creating inequality that drives those people who perceive that they have less than others to do something about it. They might work multiple jobs and shorten their lifespan, creating profits for others. They might give up, relying on welfare systems and/or begging. They might become criminals, taking from others to get what they think they deserve.
“We created a system based on “scarcity,” and then manufactured scarcity.”
I’m sure you’re responding to someone else.
I’m explaining that capitalism is not going to deliver a good standard of living for everyone, because it profits from inequality.
What does that have to do with international adoption bans?
Your comment, which I replied to:
Plenty of American kids need homes.
And I said: “Capitalism doesn’t work on giving everyone a decent standard of living.”
Apologies if my communication is too neurodivergent for you, just block me.I’m saying that instead of adopting internationally, one could look locally, as there are plenty of kids who need adoption. They don’t need to resort to importing a child from a country that profits on exporting children.
Tell me more about how capitalism fits into an adoption conversation, wumao.
I’m saying that instead of adopting internationally, one could look locally
In terms of benefits to fellow living beings, being a good parent to a child from China is exactly as beneficial as being a good parent to a child from the US. One of those things isn’t more morally appropriate.
There are also other reasons reported online for specifically adopting Chinese children. Due to political decisions, China had many unwanted but healthy female children. There appears to be a strong bias from many families for wanting physically healthy children. This occurred in Romania in the 80s (due to demands from the government to women to have more babies that they could not afford to feed, leading to a large amount of international adoptions and research into those adopted children from Romania).
Another that I am aware of is that Christian churches talk about adopting Chinese babies as a means of spreading Christianity. I also sadly suspect that the very far distance between the child and their birth parents might also be attractive, as there would not be as much meddling in the religious teachings that the adoptive families would wish to instil. It became a popular fad for some time, that had already lessened before this news of China tightening international adoption policies. There are articles about this, but the specific one I read a few months ago is not in my history.
Also, maybe some American parents who already have American children prefer ‘exotic’ children? It’s gross, but that’s the kind of choice you enable when you treat children as a commodity that can be traded internationally for money.It is clear that economics and politics are amongst the forces principally creating situations where we have many children requiring adoption within a country, and also the situation that the adults in that country feel unable to support them. Then, globalisation allows for international adoption. It’s economic systems all the way down.
No, he writes that to everyone.
I’m not male.
Wumao strikes again!
American adoption agencies can deny adoptions if they don’t like anything about you. Including your religion. And most of them are Christian, including the ones getting money from the state.
China, on the other hand, allowed you to adopt if you’re things like queer or single or not Christian.
I understand that some of them have issues. Instead of fixing those supply chain issues, we have been outsourcing to China.
Even if that’s the term we have for it, I hate the use of supply chain here, it’s got such an uncaring tone…
International adoption is a rather uncaring business to be in. Sure, it’s “for the children,” but I’m betting cash is still king.
Do you have a source for China allowing anyone who isn’t cisgender to adopt? I have only ever heard that it is an instant denial.
By queer, I didn’t mean all types of queer people. I mean that many people who fall under that spectrum have been able to successfully adopt children from China when denied by the U.S.
My question is about any type of non “conventional” couple being approved for adoption in China. As I understand it, their policy involved a strict “moral standing” to adopt, anything that deviated was instantly denied. So I am confused as to how any queer people would pass that test, let alone that its happened.
I’m guessing it involves bribes. But it was still achievable.
I bet if you bribed one of those Christians you could get the same result.
Possibly, but they seem more sincere about their bigotry.
Edit: They’re also more in tune with Western social norms that might indicate someone isn’t 100% heterosexual and they can do things like check marriage licenses.
In letters sent to some adoption agencies on Wednesday, and shared on social media, the US state department said it had been told by Chinese authorities that all other pending adoptions were cancelled, except those with already issued travel authorisations.
That’s a shitty way to handle it.
Probably worried about population decline. They’ve abandoned their 1 child policy quote some time ago and now have a maximum 3 child policy.
Yeah and according to wiki the 3 child policy isn’t even enforced?
…allowing each couple to have three children and cancelling restrictive measures including fines for couples having more children than permitted.
The 1 child policy only ever applied to around 30% of the population anyways. It was just Han Chinese in major urban centers.
I don’t think this quite tells the whole story. This is what I found in Wikipedia at least:
China’s family planning policies began to be shaped by fears of overpopulation in the 1970s, and officials raised the age of marriage and called for fewer and more broadly spaced births.[3] A near-universal one-child limit was imposed in 1980 and written into the country’s constitution in 1982.[4][5] Numerous exceptions were established over time, and by 1984, only about 35.4% of the population was subject to the original restriction of the policy.[6]: 167 In the mid-1980s, rural parents were allowed to have a second child if the first was a daughter. It also allowed exceptions for some other groups, including ethnic minorities under 10 million people.[7] In 2015, the government raised the limit to two children, and in May 2021 to three.[8] In July 2021, it removed all limits,[9] shortly after implementing financial incentives to encourage individuals to have additional children
I’m not sure if what you shared invalidates what I said at all… Wikipedia is 1st of all not the best source for these kinds of things. But even they say the policy only applied to 35.4% of the population only 4 years after it was first implemented. And it was loosened up even more over time.
What are you trying to say with that quote…?
I’m trying to say… exactly what I said. That your message didn’t tell the whole story. In fact it’s not much of a stretch to say it’s actively misleading. I’ll try and do more to articulate why, see if you agree with me.
You said:
The 1 child policy only ever applied to around 30% of the population anyways. It was just Han Chinese in major urban centers.
First of all, the statement itself is actually false because whilst it was changed after a few years, it did in fact apply to everyone initially so you can’t truthfully say that it “only ever” applied to 1/3 of the population.
Secondly, the 35.4% figure is of people who were subjected to the original one child policy restrictions. There was still a one child policy in place even for rural people except in the case that the first child was a girl. Given this happens about 50% of the time, effectively around 67% of families would still be restricted to one child, even under the revised policy. I’m neglecting the exception for minorities as by definition they are a small share of the population.
So yes, I maintain that what you said did not provide a complete or particularly accurate picture. It’s true that the policy wasn’t as simple as “nobody can have more than one child ever” but your comment was about equally accurate as that statement I would say. By saying the policy only ever applied to about 30% of people you are in my opinion misrepresenting the sheer scale and impact of the policy.
Hopefully that helps to explain why I felt the need to comment, but feel free to tell me if I’m wrong or misunderstanding something.
I used to work with a guy who had 7 kids. Seven fucking kids. Jfc.
